"Wow! That's fantastic, but you need an adult to help you out, because you have to be a registered voter," I said. "But before we get into logistics, I don't often get calls from 16-year-olds. Can you tell me how you know about Ralph?"

"Two years ago, Mr. Nader came to my high school," Derek said.

"What school is that?" I asked.

"Enrico Fermi in Enfield," Derek said.

"No way," I said. "I helped organize that. There was a standing room only crowd. What did you think of Ralph's speech?"

"I didn't see it," Derek said. "I was a freshman, and I was in World History class, and my class didn't go. I guess they thought that Ralph didn't fit with world history."

"Bummer," I said.

"Yeah, but I've been interested in Mr. Nader since then, reading about him, and I want to help him," Derek said.

So we discussed strategies for him to convince adults in his life to go out and petition with him.

Derek recruited his uncle's girlfriend to transport him and witness signatures at grocery stores.

Next, he corralled his grandfather to drive him around neighborhoods in suburban northern Connecticut. (Above is a photo of Derek and his grandfather)

Shortly after, I got this email from Derek:

"Today was truly amazing. No more than a few days ago I felt an overwhelming feeling of worthlessness. I felt that there was nothing that I could do due to my age and transportation issue. Then we talked and I went out and did something. I truly felt like I was a part of something, that I was making history. I could have volunteered for many other political campaigns, but it was the Nader/Gonzalez campaign that truly inspired me. I can openly support every policy of the campaign and sleep at night. This is a campaign that puts national interest before personal interest. We the people -- not for sale! Gives me chills. It is truly amazing to see an entire organization of everyday people working towards one beautiful common goal and putting power back into the hands of the people."

Let's not let Ralph, Derek and all our supporters down in Connecticut.

Now I was going to give John McCain a link because his campaign did something smart but I've been all over his site looking for it and can't find it.

If you're new to my site, I am not supporting John McCain. I am supporting Ralph Nader. However, the McCain camp called out Barack's crap. It's past time that happened and I believe Ava and C.I. long ago pointed out that McCain would. I don't have time to find their commentary -- it is the one where they quote one of his spokesperson's. I cannot remember the title or when it ran.

But Barack has played the race card non-stop throughout his run.

As an African-American, I know what the bi-racial blunder's doing, he's trying to egg up support from the African-American community. He's trying to turn us into his street team. His 'okey doke' and all of that other bull was an attempt back in the primaries.

It is the only card he has left to play and it's not going to play in a general election. It shouldn't have played in a primary and a lot of my brothers and sisters have caught on. We've caught on to the way it was used and we've caught on to the possible blowback that won't hit bi-racial blunder but that those of us who are Black will be stuck with it. And if you pay attention, it's all the honkeys on the left pushing this 'racist!' nonsense. They always do. Katrina vanden Heuvel cares so much about the plight of the African-American that . . . she lives in Harlem . . . in a mansion? She cares so much that she publishes . . . how many African-Americans? (One.)

During a campaign speech, the Illinois Democrat told supporters Republicans were trying to make voters scared of him."What they’re saying is, well, we know we're not very good, but you can't risk electing Obama. You know, he's new, he's — he doesn't look like the other presidents on the currency. He — you know, he's got a — he’s got a funny name. I mean, that's basically the argument, he's too risky," Obama said.

Question, does Barack ever talk about anything other than himself? Are we all supposed to be caught up in his vanity? Back to Reuters:

McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis, jumped on the comment."Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck. It's divisive, negative, shameful and wrong," Davis said in a written statement.McCain agreed with Davis, telling reporters he was "very disappointed" that Obama had used the race card."Race will not have any role in my campaign, nor is there any place for it. I’m disappointed that he’s used it."

Of course Barack was injecting race into it. "I don't look like the people on the dollar bills." He thought that was cute? I think it just shows how money obsessed the millionaire is. But he did play the race card yet again.

As the Times of London notes, "The Obama team used sensitivities over race to great effect during his primary battle against Hillary Clinton." I think he's gone to the well on that one time too many.

Thursday, July 31, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, the US military announces two deaths, the White House fakes-out the press, Barack's support continues to be revealing, and more.

Starting with war resistance. Yovany Rivero ("Geo") is an Iraq War veteran who has been twice deployed to Iraq. While serving, his faith deepened and he applied for Conscientious Objector status -- please note, CO status does not depend on religious status (a fact noted in the US military's own written guidelines -- but one those 'determining' frequently ignore). June 14th, he received a peace prize from The Rheinland-Pfalz Peace Adovacty Group. Early this month, John Vandiver (Stars and Stripes) reported on Rivero "who enlisted in the Army in 2001 when he was 18" and notes:

Michael Sharp, who works closely with Rivero as an adviser with the Germany-based Military Counseling Network, said the soldier wants to keep a low profile and isn't looking to bring attention to his case. In particular, Rivero doesn't want his fellow soldiers, whom he respects, to misinterpret his position as a sign of disrespect, Sharp said.

Though Sharp also declined to discuss Rivero's case in detail, citing Rivero's desire to avoid publicity, MCN has been working closely with numerous soldiers since the start of the Iraq war.

Perhaps the best-known case connected with MCN was that of Agustin Aguayo, a combat medic who was found guilty in 2007 of deserting the Schweinfurt, Germany-based 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division as it prepared to deploy to Iraq in 2006. Aguayo returned to California last year after serving a brief prison sentence. Others, however, have found their conscientious objector claims supported: In 2006, seven soldiers who worked with MCN had their requests approved.

Last month Courage to Resist interviewed Iraq War veteran and war resister William Shearer. Shearer enlisted at 17-years in 2002 and ended up with a non-deployable unit ("teaching units what they needed to know before they went over to a combat area, we pretty much put them through a month long simulation of combat") but that changed in 2004. Asked about his time in Iraq, Sharer responded, "It was more of like -- There wasn't a lot of action. It was more of -- It's hard to explain down there. Action over there is like getting IED or maybe getting shot at a few times or a car bomb goes off. It's not exactly what you're expecting. It's more like hunting season, you're the deer."

While serving in Iraq, Shearer faced a number of problems, "In my case I had lost a lot while I was over there. And it just started -- The more you lose and the less they do for you the more you start to see how jacked up things really are." The problems included his new wife having a semi-public affair "with an MP on post" and he was hearing about it from his platoon sergeant who heard about it from his wife who lived across the street from Shearer's wife. "And the army did nothing," Shearer states. "And there's plenty they could do. And they just they did nothing. I lost a lot of money, I lost my family while I was there you know pretty much. And when I get back, I'd lost so much, it was like I needed to start over." He returned from Iraq "like two days later . . . I got served divorce papers".

William Shearer: And the more things that pile up, it would just start detiriorating me as a soldier. It would make me look worse and worse It would get harder and harder. They didn't care. That's what I'm trying to get across. They don't care. And if they don't care and nobody's helping you out, you start to not care. You start to -- you just look at everything as bad, you have no positive whatsoever coming in. And so me and the military is pretty much diminishing quick.

Courage to Resist: So you're saying that not only didn't you get support while you were in a combat zone, you didn't get any support when you were back home either?

William Shearer: No, not really. I was checked out for PTSD. I got -- when I got home -- They put you through all of these tests, talk to a bunch of doctors I was diagnosed with PTSD, depression and a couple like sleep disorders and other things. And pretty much all they did was just start throwing me pills. Kind of like to shut me up, put me in a I-don't-care vegetative state. Pretty much just to have me there.

His PTSD 'counseling' was completely lacking in targets, goals or medical supervision. It was pair him up with an over-sixty-years-old retired military person and 'rap.' Someone who had not served in Iraq.

William Shearer: They give you this idea they're going to take of you and things are just one big family you know So I was thinking to myself "Man, I got to have a reset. I got to find a way to get myself out of this and start over -- start my life over, you know. I have nothing to work with." So I pretty much started going through the things, asking around 'Hey, what happened to this guy for doing this?' when he -- you know -- did he get an article 15? I was mainly not so worried about the disciplinary actions but the discharge that's what I was really worried about. I was asking around and AWOL was one of the things, I heard a couple of things. But the one thing that came up for me was failing the urinalysis. I-I- I just couldn't fathom anybody you deploy with or anybody who says they care about you so much -- like your batallion commanders do -- would put you out with a bad discharge after you showing for four years all the honorable deeds you've done. So it seemed to me that that was the best route for me. I wasn't so sure about AWOL. So I knew -- I knew for a fact that if I failed the urinalysis, I would be able to get out and I was pretty confident that I wouldn't get anything less than a general discharge

Courage to Resist: And your concern about the type of discharge had to do with veterans' beneifts?

William Shearer: That and how am I going to live the rest of my life, you know, how am I going to have a career? I just -- I -- There was a lot of things going through my head. You know -- as a matter of fact -- the very reason I was worried is actually what I'm doing now. You know. I'm not -- There's nothing I have no options really. It's survival.

Courage to Resist: So you made a decision to fail a urinalysis test, is that right?

William Shearer: When I went home on leave I was just like "This is how I'm going to do it." Because as soon as you come back from leave you know that the very next day you're going to get a urinalysis test.

He no longer supports the war and his thoughts on it today are:

I feel like they're exploiting those healthy young bucks that are just getting out of high school or going to be getting out of high school, you know They're telling these guys all these things they want to hear about how glorious and how fun and how good the military is. Granted, there's something that are good about it but it's not going to last forever. It doesn't last forever. And when you do go in everything changes and one thing I can tell you, they tell you, you know you could end up in a war zone, okay? When you sign up, you know all this stuff. But what they don't tell you is that you're going to be driving around and you have rules on you that the people you're fighting don't use or go against -- They don't use any of those rules. They don't abide by any rules. So you're pretty much a pawn. You do what they need you to do regardless of how dangerous it is, you know? For instance, you're just driving up and down a road expecting to get blown up. We -- we covered a mile -- a good strip of highway -- it was the most used transport highway in Iraq. It linked the north and south together. And that's where all the supplies went up and down while we were there. And our job for about two weeks was to patrol that strip of highway and eliminate all threats of IEDs whether that be they be blow you up or you find them first . They just don't want IEDs there They don't tell you that you're going to be the person that they pick to walk up to a suspected IED and give it a little nudge to see if it's a bomb, you know? They don't tell you these things. And these aren't things that these kids are thinking about -- they don't know that this stuff's there, they don't know it's like this. They're thinking they're going to go into the army, they're going to get take care of, and they're going to get put into a huge combat situation when it's not. The only people that's getting to fire anything is the enemy.

Yesterday in headlines on Democracy Now!, Juan Gonzalez explained, "In other Iraq news, the British government has announced there will be no prosecutions over the death of journalist Terry Lloyd, despite an investigation that blamed US troops. Terry Lloyd was shot dead in Iraq in March 2003 along with a French cameraman and an Iraqi interpreter. Two years ago, a British coroner ruled that US troops should be prosecuted for the unlawful killing of Lloyd, who was a well-known foreign correspondent for the British television network ITN. The coroner ruled that Lloyd was shot in the back by Iraqi soldiers. Then, as he was being driven to a hospital in a civilian minivan, Lloyd was shot in the head by US troops." Jenny Booth (Times of London) quotes ITN's spokesperson stating, "Coroner Andrew Walker concluded just under two years ago that Terry Lloyd was unlawfully killed by American troops and ITN has done everything it could to try and ensure Terry's killer is brought to justice. We are disappointed that the CPS has decided they cannot take this matter further, and that despite the coroner's call on the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions to demand that the Americans bring the perpretator of a possible war crime before a British court of law, the US authorities remain unco-operative." Meanwhile, AP reports that journalist Ali al-Mashhadani is being held by the US military at Camp Cropper. al-Mashhadani works for Reuters, BBC and NPR. Dean Yates (Reuters) reports that (as usual) no charges have been brought against Ali and quotes David Schlesinger (Reuters Editor-in-Chief) explaining, "Any accusations against a journalist should be aired publicly and dealt with fairly and swiftly, with the journalist having the right to counsel and present a defense." From Monday's snapshot, "Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) reported . . . 'Also on Friday, the American military acknowledged that it unintentionally killed the son of an editor for an American-financed newspaper in the northern city of Kirkuk on Thursday. The military said soldiers had been fired at from a taxi and shot back, hitting Arkan al-Naiemi, 14, in the taxi'." Saturday, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) wrote about Arkan at Baghdad Observer noting that he "often stayed late at his father's newsroom in Kirkuk. The editor-in-chief of the weekly Voice of Villages, Ali Taha, treated his son as a journalist in training. . . . The teen listened to pop music and was obsessed with computer games. He loved the weekly trips he took with his father to sites in the area. The most recent trip was to the Dokan Dam, the primary water source in Kirkuk. He loved to stay late into the night at the Voice of Villages newsroom, a U.S. supported weekly, and help in any way he could. Who knows what he would've been when he grew up. Who knows what life he would've lived. God had other plans, his father said."

"This has been a month of encouraging news from Iraq," declared the delusional Bully Boy in DC today. He gave his usual lies and spin. Progress -- blah, blah, blah. He was most transparent when declaring, " This week, the Iraqi government is launching a new offensive in parts of the Diyala province that contain some of al Qaeda's few remaining safe havens in the country. This operation is Iraqi-led; our forces are playing a supporting role." Yes, it is a for-show effort. But first, reporters were led to believe that today's speech from Bully Boy would include something major and that it would include news of the treaty the White House wants with their puppet, Nouri al-Maliki, in Baghdad. Alissa J. Rubin and Steven Lee Myers (New York Times) teased out whispers and gossip of a draft treaty about to be final so much in this morning's paper, it was practically a beehive. And they noted that the White House's "unofficial deadline for the deal has long been July 31. . . . Also, the White House announced late on Wednesday that President Bush would make a statement on Iraq on Thursday morning." The press got played. It was the first question in the US State Dept press briefing today (Dana Perino -- doing White House gaggles -- was peppered about a "staff wedding" -- way to work White House press corps). It was pointed out that the agreement was wanted by July 31st which is today and there is no agreement. State Dept spokesperson Sean McCormack immediately insisted he'd never said a deadline (no, he personally did not) and then had difficulty keeping a straight face. Still chuckling, he referred reporters to the morning speech and finally finishing with, "In terms of negotiations, those are ongoing and I won't go into detail on those." Asked again about this topic, he referred to the White House statements. From Iraq, Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) reports on Diyala Province. The for-show action goes on. Zavis goes with a number of 30,000 Iraqi troops in Diyala and yesterday, Jim Lehrer (PBS' NewsHour) worded it this way, "In Iraq today, a military offensive in Diyala province moved into a second day. Some 50,000 Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces went door-to-door, hunting al-Qaida fighters. An Iraqi regional leader said the operation was expected to last about two weeks." Hint, when the numbers being given out do not match, it's a hype action. In the real world, violence continued . . .

Today the US military announced: "A U.S. Soldier died in a non-combat related incident while conducting operations in Ninewah Province July 31. Additionally, two other U.S. Soldiers were injured in the incident." And they announced: "The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.Sgt. James A. McHale, 31, of Fairfield, Mont., died July 30 at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Md., of wounds suffered July 22 in Taji, Iraq, when his vehicle encountered an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to the 40th Engineer Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Armored Division, Baumholder, Germany. "

Turning to the US race for president. January 16, 2007 Barack Obama declared his intention to run for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. Interesting. Before Barack told the American people he was running, months before, he met with a rapper. Deanne Bellandi (Chicago Sun-Times) reported November 29, 2006 on Barack's meet up with "rapper Ludacris . . . Obama declined to comment after their meeting but walked with [Chris] Bridges [Ludacris' legal name] to the elevator as he left." Nearly two months before Barack would tell the American people that he had decided to run for president, he was sounding out Ludacris. By that time Ludacris was already gutter trash with a long history of misogny. It got him kicked from the Jackson County Fair in 2003 -- three years prior to Barack's first known 'counseling' with Ludacris. That wouldn't stop Barack from praising him to Rolling Stone and bragging that he had Ludacris on his iPod. Presumably the feminist manifesto "Move Bitch"? Ludacris is in the news and a complete reflection on the gutter trash campaign Barack has run. And Barack's praised him as among the "great talents and great businessmen." [See Cedric's "Gutter Trash you can smell" and Wally's "THIS JUST IN! THE LEADER TRIES TO CONTROL THE CULT!"] The Guardian of London has long been in the tank for Barack. They're a laugh and not real journalism. It's only on this side of the ocean that they're taken seriously. In England they're seen as the party organ for the Labour Party. So let's see how they lie. Ewen MacAskill 'informs' that: "Obama, seeking to become the first African-American president, was not helped by a song by the Grammy award-winning rapper Ludacris endorsing him and abusing McCain, George Bush and Clinton." To be clear, Rev. Jesse Jackson is disrespected in the song. In a rap song, that's not surprising. In one attempting to help out Ludacris' lover-man Barack, it's appalling. Way to pimp that 'unity.' The remark about John McCain would have people screaming if anyone had said it about Barack. But what does Ewen Pig leave out? Hillary.

Ralph Nader is running for president. Doug G. Ware (KUTV) notes that Nader speaks tonight to a group at the University of Utah and that the former mayor of Salt Lake City (and Nation magazine cover boy) Rocky Anderson will introduce him.

"Wow! That's fantastic, but you need an adult to help you out, because you have to be a registered voter," I said. "But before we get into logistics, I don't often get calls from 16-year-olds. Can you tell me how you know about Ralph?"

"Two years ago, Mr. Nader came to my high school," Derek said.

"What school is that?" I asked.

"Enrico Fermi in Enfield," Derek said.

"No way," I said. "I helped organize that. There was a standing room only crowd. What did you think of Ralph's speech?"

"I didn't see it," Derek said. "I was a freshman, and I was in World History class, and my class didn't go. I guess they thought that Ralph didn't fit with world history."

"Bummer," I said.

"Yeah, but I've been interested in Mr. Nader since then, reading about him, and I want to help him," Derek said.

So we discussed strategies for him to convince adults in his life to go out and petition with him.

Derek recruited his uncle's girlfriend to transport him and witness signatures at grocery stores.

Next, he corralled his grandfather to drive him around neighborhoods in suburban northern Connecticut. (Above is a photo of Derek and his grandfather)

Shortly after, I got this email from Derek:

"Today was truly amazing. No more than a few days ago I felt an overwhelming feeling of worthlessness. I felt that there was nothing that I could do due to my age and transportation issue. Then we talked and I went out and did something. I truly felt like I was a part of something, that I was making history. I could have volunteered for many other political campaigns, but it was the Nader/Gonzalez campaign that truly inspired me. I can openly support every policy of the campaign and sleep at night. This is a campaign that puts national interest before personal interest. We the people -- not for sale! Gives me chills. It is truly amazing to see an entire organization of everyday people working towards one beautiful common goal and putting power back into the hands of the people."

Let's not let Ralph, Derek and all our supporters down in Connecticut.

Like the largesse he spread so bountifully to members of Congress and the White House staff -- countless fancy meals, skybox tickets to basketball games and U2 concerts, golfing sprees in Scotland -- Jack Abramoff is the gift that keeps on giving.The notorious lobbyist and his cohorts (including conservatives Tom Delay, Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed) shook down Native American tribal councils and other clients for tens of millions of dollars, buying influence via a coalition of equally corrupt government officials and cronies dedicated to dismantling government by selling it off, making massive profits as they tore the principles of a representative democracy to shreds.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

I checked the e-mails by chance. (My e-mail address is on my profile but I'll note it here sickofitradlz@yahoo.com if you need to drop a line.) This is really a vacation this week so I won't be checking it as often as I normally do. And, in fact, I had not checked it since Friday. Yesterday's post proved to be very popular.

Three of you had some questions and that will be answered at Third on Sunday. Mike, Jess and C.I. came up with an idea for a feature because the questions I just saw have actually been asked of others. So check there and I think you'll find the answers.

I continue to get questions about the video strip on the right. Or, honestly, complaints. I put that there thinking it would be news. That's how it was promoted by Google. It's never news. Right now it's Heath Ledger, two cheese cake photos of women and two White guys that are in a movie or sitcom. (I don't recognize them.)

Let me start with what I wanted. What I wanted was to embed The Real News Network. That was impossible. I thought it was just me but C.I. logged into my template to try it as well. I was on the phone with C.I. and it was a good hour (with me apologizing and saying "Forget it!") that C.I. tried. When I couldn't get that (it's not compatible with Blogger/Blogspot -- or wasn't back then), I was looking around for something else -- because I am new and wanted a different visual look. I found Google and C.I. talked me through embedding that.

It's never been news. It's almost always cheese cake.

At first that bothered me. Maybe it still should? I haven't found a hottie among the two cheese cake photos anytime I've looked but I've learned to laugh at it. And I think it's kind of funny -- you would too if you read some of the homophobic e-mails I get -- that it actually ends up freaking homophobes out. It's like, "Oh no, those gals look so young and innocent! And they're on the lesbian's blog!"

At some point The Real News Network may be compatible and I may try to do it then. By the way, there's a community member thinking of doing a blog. It may not come to pass. But it's floating out there so let me put it out there as well.

It's a vacation this week. Sometimes we tag along with Ava and C.I. and sometimes we don't. And sometimes we're sent away!

That happened today. C.I. was getting ready to dictate the snapshot and found out the report on Iraq had come out and found out how many pages it was. So Ava, C.I. and Wally went to ____ (news outlet) because C.I. didn't want to print that out and knew ___ at ___ would already have. Wally went along because he knows what to do -- he's done this with late breaking government reports. Tagged along with Ava and C.I. to some news outlet where a friend of Ava or C.I.'s or both is and gone through the report. They divide it up and go through it bit by bit. But quickly.

So C.I. told us that it would be boring and take forever. (Wally, Ava, C.I. and ___ knocked it out in one hour -- according to Wally.) So instead, Jim took us up the coast (further north) and we got to see some more of California. It's very pretty.The latest CNN poll, as reported by AP, "when third-party candidates are included, with Ralph Nader getting 6 percent and Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman from Georgia running for president as a Libertarian, getting 3 percent."

I usually sleep in most mornings which is really weird when I stop to think that it's three hours later than I'm used to (time zones) so I'm already sleeping in! But I usually do. Betty and her kids stay with Kat. That's in part to have room and also because Betty and Kat are so tight. (There really is room for Betty and her three kids at C.I.'s.) That started the first summer they all spent together. In the lead up (Betty hadn't seen C.I.'s house and didn't realize how large it was and was freaking out about the fact that everyone else was just bringing themselves but she was bringing herself and three kids), Betty asked Kat if it would be okay to stay with her? Kat's got three bedrooms but one is a dark room. She explained that and Betty said she and her daughter would grab one bed and her boys could sleep on the floor or, if Kat had a large enough couch, on the couch. Kat actually has two couches and one is foldout. So it was perfect. Add in that Kat lives in a very funky area that has all this local charm. So Betty always stays with Kat now.

Because, Kat, C.I. and the Third crew lives out here, they know the area very well. And there are usually several different outings you can grab in the morning, afternoon or evening. Tomorrow I'm doing the Napa Valley thing which is supposed to be a lot of fun. (I'm taking rolls and rolls of film. I don't have a digital camera but C.I. slid me one of those and I'm using it as well. When I get home, I'll develop my photos and do some photo essays for the community newsletters. Oh, community newsletters. Maria -- who does El Spirito with Miguel and Francisco -- lives out here as well and she brought over the most amazing tamales.) Ava and C.I. do the political thing every day. Wally and Mike always go along. Thank you to Elaine, by the way, who always asks, "Marcia, do you want to go? You don't have to go if you don't want." If Elaine's not going on the political things, she's usually hanging around the house, out at the pool, reading and relaxing. She always reminds me that it's a vacation and that if I just want to relax, that's okay. Which I was planning to do tomorrow but then heard about the Napa Valley thing and didn't want to miss out on that.

So it is a LOT of fun. I'm having a blast. Most nights we go out (we have every night so far). The Golden Gate Bridge. I need to mention that because Kat told me, "No, no, you have to see it at night." She was right. Also, big thanks to Kat, Monday she asked, "Where's the list?" I asked, "What list?" She responded, "Who are you taking things back to?" I'd promised everyone at work a little something and wanted to get my parents something as well. We talked about that and she took me to the perfect out-of-the-way store where I found the most amazing things. So if you're reading this and we work together, I didn't forget you! Gifts are already crossed off my list!

Last night, I was mentioning Chris Hedges and how he's supporting Ralph Nader -- and one of the few people who is brave enough to do so. This morning, I saw this from Team Nader:

Chris Hedges: I'm Voting for Nader

And came across Brian Lamb interviewing former New York Times reporter Chris Hedges.

Lamb asked Hedges who he's going to vote for this year for President.

Hedges did not hesitate.

"I'm going to vote for Nader," Hedges said.

"I can't vote for anybody who doesn't call for an immediate end to the war in Iraq."

"The war under post Nuremburg laws is a criminal war of aggression. It's illegal. We have no right as a nation to debate the terms of the occupation. We have no right to be there."

Hedges is a beacon of morality and courage in swamp of corruption, dishonesty and cowardliness.

And Hedges stands with Nader/Gonzalez -- the anti-war candidacy in 2008.

Hedges is just out with a new book, with Laila Al-Arian, titled Collateral Damage: America's War Against Iraqi Civilians.

He's the author of two other anti-war classics:

What Every Person Should Know About War

and

War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.

Luckily, we've come across a stash of all three.

And for a donation of $200 now to fund our current ballot access drive, we'll ship you all three books -- Collateral Damage, What Every Person Should Know About War, and War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.

Please check out the Nader website because so much has gone up this week. I had an e-mail from someone who's never written before asking about comments? He left a comment and it hadn't shown up when he e-mailed. Comment at Ralph's site. At my site, I allow comments. I deleted a little over 30 one time because they were racist (n-word) and homophobic. Most of the time I don't delete them. If I get an e-mail saying, "Marcia, there's a racist comment someone's left . . ." I go read it and delete it if it's racist. Most of the homophobes have taken to e-mailing me and stopped commenting. But that's how I do it. I don't moderate them meaning if you leave a comment, it goes up right then. Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez are running for the White House. They do have to screen comments. So there's a delay for that reason in comments showing up.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, Parliament takes their summer recess, a war resister tells his story, for-show actions continue in Iraq, a new report on waste in Iraq is released, and more.

Tuesday, July 15th will go down as a black day in Canadian history. The first Iraqi War Resister from the American military was deported from Canada for refusing to fight in a war that Canada refused to get involved in, that the United Nations has called illegal, and that much of the world sees as an invasion of a sovereign country for oil resources. Robin Long, 25, was one of hundreds of U.S. men and women who have struggled with the decision to risk life-long separation from their families, friends and their country to stay in Canada. If they return to the U.S. they can face arrest, court martial, prison sentences, deployment to Iraq and being blacklisted from employment and education opportunities for the rest of their lives. Many of these youth have been targeted by an 'economic draft', a US recruitment effort that targets the poor with offers of employment, health care for family members, higher education and more if they sign up. These promises are not always kept. Our country has a history once known for peacekeeping, for the art of diplomatic negotiation, for refuge in times of war, for welcoming conscientious objectors like the Mennonites, the Quakers, the Doukhobors, and the Vietnam draft dodgers. These immigrants have made huge contributions to the life of their communities and to our country. Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government chose to direct the deportation of Mr. Long DESPITE the June 3rd House of Commons vote in favour of a resolution introduced by my colleague, Olivia Chow, Federal NDP Immigration Critic. This motion called on our Government to cease any removal or deportation actions against conscientious objectors who have refused or left military service related to a war not sanctioned by the UN. It called for the government to immediately set up programs to allow their application for permanent residency status, so that they can remain in Canada. Further, on June 27th Angus Reid released a poll showing that 64% of Canadians believe that US War Resisters should be allowed to stay in Canada, re-enforcing the fact that the vote in Parliament was reflecting the will of the Canadian people.On July 4th the Federal Court of Canada acted, and ruled that war resister Joshua Key should have his denied refugee claim reviewed by the Refugee Board of Canada. The court found that someone who refuses to take part in military action which "systematically degrades, abuses or humiliates" combatants or non-combatants might qualify as a refugee. On July 9th, the Federal Court further ruled that war resister Corey Glass's order for deportation the next day should be stayed for an indefinite period of time.The Canadian people and the Parliament of Canada have spoken. I call upon Minister Day, Minister Finley and Prime Minister Harper to respect the will of Parliament and the Canadian people and to stand up to President Bush to ensure that American soldiers who oppose that war receive a welcome in Canada.Alex Atamanenko, MP BC Southern Interior

Against the wishes of Canadians and Canada's Parliament, the federal government deported U.S. Iraq war resister Robin Long to the United States, where he faces punishment for refusing to participate in the Iraq War. Robin is currently being held at Fort Carson, Colorado. People can send letters of support to Robin at the following address:

Robin is allowed to receive hand or type-written letters. They must not include anything like drawings made with markers, lipstick, crayons, stickers etc. or print articles. There can be no enclosures, with the exception of standard size photographs (ie. up to 4x6 inches). These must be printed at a photo developing place (i.e. not photocopies, or from a home printer, or Polaroids), and there must be LESS than ten photos, otherwise they will get put in lockup with his personal belongings and he won't see them. The War Resisters Support Campaign is calling on supporters across Canada to urgently continue to put pressure on the minority conservative government to immediately cease deportation proceedings against other US war resisters and to respect the will of Canadians and their elected representatives by implementing the motion adopted by Parliament on June 3rd. Please see the take action page for what you can do.

Thank goodness for The Canadian Press. Were it not for their article, the CBC, the Welland Tribune, the Globe and Mail and the Buffalo News (among others) might have blank spaces. Instead, all work from the same TCP article to tell you that Deltona, Florida's 23-year-old Tyrone Pachauer was arrested by US Customs and Border officers as he attempted to enter the US following a self-checkout while on leave (December 19th through January 1st). He was reportedly living with relatives in Brampton, Ontario while AWOL. Precious Yutango (Toronto Star) is the only one filing a report and cites US Customs and Border Protection's Kevin Corsaro stating, "Supposedly, he had left boot camp in December for Christmas break. I guess he decided he didn't want to be in the army anymore so he fled to Brampton." Meanwhile AP reports Casey Anne Hardt (18-years-old, from Chiloquin, Oregon) was arrested in . . . Louisiana -- which may hold the record for the most arrests of AWOLs during the Iraq War. She was arrested at a traffic stop in Bossier City (right next to Shreveport). AP states she had a desertion warrant and was now awaiting "extradition to Fort Leonard Wood", MO.

Courage to Resist speaks with Michael Thurman (audio interview) about how he signed up, at seventeen-years-old, for the delayed entry program in 2005 while in high school, "I was really interested in aviation and having a career in aviation. . . . One day the air force recruiter came to school and I was talking to her about joining the military as an air force maintenance technician and eventually working to become a pilot." He described himself at that time as "indifferent," "young," "motivated by self-interests" and in "a conservative right-wing household."

In his senior year he "found some new friends" who provided him with "more of a liberal lean towards politics. So I started seeing it through those eyes and that's when I started becoming a little discontent with the war and the government. . . . But I was still ready to go."

Thurman was then sent to Lackland Air Force Base for basic training where, "I just questioned a lot of things I was being taught." In one class the training was videos of violence -- people being shot, people being blown up -- which led Thurman to questioning. As did "one of the chants was about killing people" which all indicated that "it just seemed like a really hateful, angry situation I didn't want to be in."

Michael Thurman: I didn't really want to be part of killing people but I was already in and I didn't really have a choice so I just advanced and kept telling myself it might get better. So I went through tech school with that . . . with that kind of -- I was a little bit angry about my situation and I got depressed about it a lot. And from there -- It was actually during tech school that I started studying a lot of Eastern philosophy and thought and Buddhism and Taoism and that kind of changed my perspective in a spiritual way towards humanity and towards existence. So . . . I guess I could say at that point I could say I was totally opposed to the situation I was in.

Eventually, he ended up at Beale Air Force Base:

Michael Thurman: I started working out on the flight lines. And every day I was out there I just thought of all the indirect killing I was contributing to and I just couldn't take it anymore. So one day I told my supervisor that I didn't agree with any of it and I didn't want to be in the military anymore. And I told him, if there was any way I could get out, I'd like to get out. They took me off of flight run. He's actually the one who told me about consientious objector. I actually didn't know about the term until I was introduced to it by him. So I looked into it and I read down the criteria and I thought, "Wow, yeah, this is what I am, this is what I'm going to apply for so I can get out of the military." So I applied for consientious. objector status and it took me a long time to it was a really arduous process. They put me in -- they put me in the office. They took me off of flight line and put me in an office. And I was just doing personnel work just pushing paper and filing. I was like a file clerk and that sort of stuff which I was still contributing to it. So every day that I was in, I was in constant turmoil about even the little, the little stuff -- like mopping or taking out the trash. It still contributed to this huge system that I was totally opposed to being.

Courage to Resist: So from the time you first asked to get out until you were discharged, how long was it?

Michael Thurman: It took a very long time, eight months for me to get discharged by the time I applied for conscientious objector status. What happened was, when I applied I had to write a huge paper about what I believe and how it came to be and why I couldn't contribute to war anymore. And at that point, I had to talk to a psychiatrist to make sure I was still sane. I guess they thought I might have been crazy . . . I talked to a lawyer at the legal office and she's actually the one that processed all my legal stuff and determined whether or not I was actually a cons obj and she recommended me to my base commander and it basically went up the chain of command so that's why it took a long time. Oh and I also had to talk to a chaplain and the chaplain gave me a report about my religious and spiritual beliefs. And, so yeah, from that, from those interviews it goes to legal office on base and then it just goes up the chain of command. And it went all the way up to the Secretary of the Air Force and it took eight months for that to happen.

In the US today, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstuction issued a report. Stuart Bowen Jr. issued a note to the report [PDF format warning] explaining, "The United States has now appropriated more than $50 billion in taxpayer dollars for Iraq's reconstruction." The report notes its basis is "seven new audit products" between May 1st and June 30th of this year. The US has outsourced and done so badly if that's not redundant. As is well known, the US government has provided no oversight. Most recently, Dana Hedgpeth and Amit R. Paley (Washington Post) reported Monday on a finding from the Officie of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, "The U.S. government paid a California contractor $142 million to build prisons, fire stations and police facilities in Iraq that is has nver built or finished". The report released today notes these oversight problems on the part of the US government:

* Inappropriate payment of award fees.

* Insufficiently defined scope of work.

* Inadequate preparation of detailed and independent cost estimates.

* Not initiating timely action to close out task orders.

Of course a key problem was the awarding of no-bid contracts on what appears to be a crony system. Parsons is always in the news . . . when it comes to corruption. The report is not different and notes Parsons re: fire houses, "SIGIR reviewed the largest task order, Task Order 51, which called for Parsons to design and construct 21 fire stations in Anbar and Baghdad. Because of multiple delays and cost increases, the U.S. government reduced the number of stations to be constructed to 100. Later another fire station was eliminated before construction began because of land ownership issues, and a second was terminated for the convenience of the government after it was bombed twice during construction leaving nine. In 2006, Parsons completed the nine fire stations and transferred them to the GOI. The award fee paid to Parsons for wok on this tark order was $296,294 -- 23% of the total available award fee."

Parsons bills itself as "a leader in many diverse markets such as infrastructure, transportation, water, telecommunications, aviation, commerical, environmental, industrial manufacturing, education, healthcare, life scienes and homeland security." The company was formed in 1944 and moved to Pasadena in 1992 -- a move James F. McNulty instituted four years prior to be coming CEO and President of the company. McNulty is currently the Chair of the Board (and has been since 1998) and he joined Parsons upon retiring from the US army (Col.) in 1988. What a ride it's been for McNulty. Griff Witte (Washington Post) reported at the end of the 2006 that Parsons and McNulty felt under attack from Congress and McNulty was blaming others and that he "suggested the government needed to rethink its heavy dependence on the private sector for reconstruction, security and support in a combat environment. The comments are unusual for the leader of a firm that makes much of its money doing work for the government. Then again, few have been battered as badly as Parsons, an employee-owned, California-base compnay with a six-decade track record. Since the spring, when news of the stumbling health clinic program first broke, the company's preformance has been derided in the press and upt under the microscope at congressional hearings. At a hearing in September, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) spoke of a $75 million police academy that Parsons was responsible for but that wend badly awry: 'This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America. Incompetence. Profiteering. Arrogance. And human waste oozing out of ceilings as a result'." On a June 23, 2004 broadcast of PBS' NewsHour, Waxman called it what it was: "It is looked at as profiteering. And we shouldn't have that go on a time when we've got brave. American men and women who are facing the possibility of giving their lives to help the U.S. effort." McNulty rejected that and insisted that there was no way "we are somehow taking advantage of either the Iraqi people or our government." In January of last year, KCET's Life & Times was returning to the difference of opinions between Waxman and McNulty with Waxman arguing, "I don't think anybody ought to get paid and be able to keep the money if they didn't do what they were supposed to do. Then they found that the Iraqi subcontractors didn't do the work, so why should the United States taxpayers pay for that? We should get our money back." To which McNulty responded, "There is nothing wrong with our firm having made a profit on that work that we did over there in Iraq. It was legitimately earned. It was honestly earned and none of our employees nor our firm should feel the least bit bad about that." That 'honest' work that McNulty's so proud of is best evaluated by Jackie Northam (NPR) reporting in May of 2007: "Getting a definitive answer on the number of clinics completed by Parsons is not easy. Of the original 151 promised, the construction company says it handed over 20 fully equipped, completed health-care centers. The Army Corps of Engineers disputes that number, saying it received only six completed clinics. Some of those needed additional work, the Corps says."

The SIGIR report notes that "Iraq's oil revenues will crest $70 billion by the end of the year." meanwhile approximately $40 million in US tax dollars was wasted on a prison outside Baquba (Kahn Bani Sa'ad) which was turned over to the central government in Baghdad (to finish).This prison was a Parson's 'effort'. The report notes, "About $142 million was spent on various Parsons projects that were ultimately canceled or not completed, including Kahn Bani Sa'ad. The report notes Iraq's deputy prime minister (Barham Salih) stating, "Iraq does not need financial assistance." BBC explains, "This . . . meant the government was capable of fundign reconstruction projects itself. The report also criticised the Iraqi authorities for failing to improve sewage and drainage facilities. . . . Roger Hardy, the BBC's Middle East analyst, said the report was the latest in a string of criticisms by the watchdog of the way in which American taxpayers' money is being spent in Iraq" Click here for HTML folder containing links to the -- PDF format warning -- sections of the report. Peter Spiegel (Los Angeles Times) points out, "Democratic leaders in Congress are pushing the administration to pressure the Iraqi government to fund its own infrastructure projects through rising oil revenue."

Meanwhile, the pagentry of puppety . . . Diyala Province. Campbell Robertson (New York Times) reports, "Military officers, both Iraqi and Americans, said the insurgents had probably fled the are after news media reports that the sweep was to begin soon, though officials had been saying publicly that it would be likely to begin in early August." Alexandra Zavis (Los Angeles Times) explained, "Iraqi soldiers and national police encountered no resistance as they knock in Baqubah and the town of Khan Bani Saad, about 15 miles south. But this is well-trod ground for the Iraqi forces and their U.S. counterparts, who have conducted repeated operations in the area since last year." It's a for-show effort that (a) props up the puppet Nouri al-Maliki and (b) makes the war seem 'winnable.' In the real world, Reuters reports that Moqtada al-Sadr has "called on Iraq's leaders not to sign a security deal with the United States, offering to throw his support behind the government if the talks were scrapped." Iraq's parliament is out of session now (for one month); however, Reuters reports that Parliament Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashhadani has called a special session for Sunday to address the electoral issues.

Last Friday on Capitol Hill, the House Judiciary Committee weighed in on "executive power and its constitutional limits" in an inconsequential discussion of King George's imperial presidency.

There would be no vote on impeachment, no discussion of the dereliction of Congressional duty, and no Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader, who has long championed the necessity of impeachment for W's repeated, defiant high crimes and misdemeanors, was not invited to testify at the Rayburn Building on Friday morning. Writer DC Larson summed the situation up, proclaiming that the "Democrat-led Congress are as unconcerned about political justice as is any neo-con in Rupert Murdoch's Rolodex."

The Nader campaign was there to observe, along with hundreds of other concerned citizens, but couldn't crack the guest-list, despite a run-in with Ms. Kucinich . Only 16 individuals were granted admission into the hall to observe testimony from the following witnesses:

Panel I:

Hon. Dennis KucinichU.S. House of Representatives10th District, OH

Hon. Maurice HincheyU.S. House of Representatives22nd District, NY

Hon. Walter JonesU.S. House of Representatives3rd District, NC

Hon. Brad MillerU.S. House of Representatives13th District, NC

Panel II:

Hon. Elizabeth HoltzmanFormer U.S. House of Representatives16th District, NYDepartment of Justice

Hon. Bob BarrFormer U.S. House of RepresentativesU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement7th District, GA

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr.Senior CounselBrennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law

Said Chairman John Conyers with regard to his committee's inaction, "we are not done yet, and we do not intend to go away until we achieve the accountability that Congress is entitled to and the American people deserve."

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

C.I. was dictating the snapshot when I heard laughter like I've never heard before. "Repeat that," C.I. said between laughs. "No, no, we're not including that. But thank you." Then C.I. shared what the call was about. AP had just filed a story about Michelle Obama.

Michelle, it's not that easy.

You can google "Michelle Obama" and "Hillary Clinton" if you're interested in Michelle's attempt to scare up some votes for her husband.

Michelle declared that she and her two daughters owe Hillary a huge debt. As women.

Barack can't close the deal with women. For good reason.

And Michelle thinks we're all stupid.

Michelle, dear, I remember you live on network TV one morning in February being asked if you could vote for Hillary if she were the nominee. I believe your exact words were, "I'd have to think about it."

Now you want to talk about the debt you and your daughters owe her.

Oh, Michelle, it's not that easy.

For starters, you can call out the sexist attacks on Hillary. Then you can move on to how your husband's supporters used sexist attacks and then you can talk about how your husband did.

At any point after that, I might listen to what you have to say without bursting out laughing.

When C.I. repeated it to us, we all started laughing.

No sale, Michelle.

Since C.I. does have friends on the Obama campaign and since they do read Third, I immediately thought of "Feminist History: Learn it or repeat" and wondered how much that impacted Michelle's sudden appreciation of Hillary?

An appreciation she's never spoken of or indicated previously.

I believe it was this article that C.I. summarized (I haven't read it -- the person on the phone to C.I. was with AP so I don't feel the need to read it) which included a detail that has me now seeing Emily's List as Schindler's List.

Ellen Malcom, that groovy chick, got some time talking with Team Obama and she was so giddy and thrilled.

Go for it, Ellen, turn over your list. Betray women.

If Emily's List starts supporting that sexist sack of s**t, they can expect to be ridiculed from now until the end of time.

Here's reality, women are not coming to Barack as the polls keep demonstrating. He can't close the gap.

Women who see themselves as 'leaders' should grasp that. They shouldn't try to sell us out for a seat at the table.

Barack wants the women's votes, it's going to take more than his usual, generic stump speech. And it's going to take more than a one-line note of appreciation to Hillary from Michelle.

The campaign better be willing to do more than 'talk.' If it does and some 'leaders' want to hop on board, I won't be as angry. I still won't vote for him.

And that die was cast long, long ago. See, what feminist 'leaders' keep forgetting is that some of us women ARE LESBIANS. I'm one. Hello, Ellen Macolm!

And Barack put homophobes on stage in South Carolina.

He will never get my vote.

And 'leaders' better decide if they want to slap lesbians in the face because, let me tell you, we can carry a grudge through the desert without breaking a sweat.

So groovy chick Ellen Malcolm better decide what really matters to her. As I understand Emily's List, it supports women politicians. Has Barack had something lopped off and the remainder turned into a vagina?

Nader on Greider, Hightower and Kuttner

I write this letter of inquiry out of respect and wonderment to my three friends whose progressive writings over the past generation have been second to none in the community of public intellectuals.

You write cogently - as if people matter first, as if responsive elections, politics and government are critical for a resourceful society that is functionally and institutionally dedicated to the pursuit of justice.

There is one exception to the above generalization with which I have direct familiarity.

In your recent writings and interviews, where you have had pertinent and relevant opportunity to inform your audiences, you declare your dissatisfaction with the two major parties and their leaders over specific issues and records of evasions and neglect.

But you make no mention of the Nader/Gonzalez campaign and its policies that are square on with your positions.

You ignore the areas of action and engagement we are representing or furthering and that McCain and Obama either oppose or ignore.

We're not inferring any endorsements here - just pointing out candidates who are reflecting your kind of political and economic advocacy.

My question is this:

If, year after year, the two major parties oppose or ignore our policy prescriptions, and often facilitate making conditions worse for the people, how do you propose to jump start or spark some movement inside the presidential electoral arena?

You and most of your policy colleagues, whether they write, speak, interview or conduct conferences, almost never choose to recognize or mention the positions and records very similar to yours that were taken, or are being taken, inside the presidential electoral arena by Nader/Camejo (2004) or Nader/Gonzalez (2008).

There are times during interviews on television or radio when the comment or question thrown out at you begs for some mention that someone out there, whom you have known for a long time, is contrasting and challenging the two party "elected" dictatorship that defiantly excludes or marginalizes competition - through state ballot laws and closed debates (a serious civil liberties issue, if nothing else).

The corporate Democrats who control the Party know that they will not be taken to task by the leading writers and polemicists of the progressive community in a way that will discomfort them - i.e. pointing out that their voters can avail themselves of other options on the ballot.

Is there any other language that they understand inside the electoral process?

It is as if your predecessors in the nineteenth century spoke out for abolition, suffrage, labor and farmer empowerment without mentioning or recognizing the existence of those small parties and independent candidates who pioneered, along with parallel civic movements, those great social justice advances we now take for granted.

None of these political candidates ever won a national election, but active speakers, writers, and conveners did not treat them as non-persons.

A very few of your colleagues are beginning to write about the number three presidential and vice presidential candidates in this race. (In Wimbledon or the NCAA tournament, the number 60th seed or team is given a chance to play.)

They realize what an effort it takes just to place one's candidacy on the playing field of a rigged system.

You should empathize enough to cover us on the road after Labor Day.

One journalist - Chris Hedges - found his breaking point and has written columns supporting our campaign.

What is your breaking point in this context?

Is that a valid question to ask as our country is being driven into the ground and its global corporations are tearing at its heart and soul?

Have you ever visited our websites in 2004 and 2008 - voternader.org?

I know about the uni-directional jackhammer nature of Washington's opinion oligopoly.

What I have difficulty understanding is what is its antonym in the progressive media when it comes to reporting and commenting about those who are contending inside the electoral arena?

I look forward to your considered response.

In the meantime, all of us at the Nader/Gonzalez campaign continue to absorb and value your insights and proposals but with a growing sense of puzzlement over the missing gap.

Sincerely yours,

Ralph Nader

P.S. Look at the near blackout nationally of the indictments this month brought by the Pennsylvania Attorney General against state Democratic legislators and legislative aides using government time and taxpayer money to move against electoral and political opponents, including removing Nader/Camejo from the ballot during the 2004 presidential campaign. It was headline news in Pennsylvania but nationally, even the civil liberties groups were not moved. Without candidate rights, how valuable are voter rights in a gerrymandered nation?

Who is going to stand with Ralph? Chris Hedges is and that's why C.I. ignored a KPFA appearance this month that would have otherwise resulted in Hedges being called out. C.I. even asked all of us to remember that Hedges took a brave stand that wasn't easy (but was the right thing to do) and table any criticisms of Hedges we could. If we couldn't, go for it. But I don't think any of us are going to call him out now. It's like when Kat wrote a hilarious CD review ripping apart a faded artist . . . and then pulled it when Ava and C.I. agreed it was funny but did she know the woman was supporting Hillary? No, she did not. She decided not to run it.

Tuesday July 29, 2008. Chaos and violence continue, is Diyala being used for for-show purposes, all-they-need-now-is-a-locust-plague news, Iraqi unions have a victory?, and more.

Starting with war resistance. James Burmeister was a class of 2007 war resister which we all know means they got NO attention from Panhandle Media. His story was compelling -- as are the stories of all war resisters -- and it was also news breaking. Mark Larabee's "Soldiers still go over the hill even in an all-volunteer Army" (The Oregonian, July 16, 2007) would break the news of James Burmeister and of the kill-teams targeting Iraqi civilians. And Panhandle Media would respond with . . . silence and indiferrence. Maybe they just found it all 'tedious'? Dee Knight never saw the job of indpendent media to render war resisters (or the Iraq War) invisible. Knight (Workers World) reports that Erich Burmeister (rightly) considers his son a hero, "I think my son is a hero. There are many Iraqis who were not killed because of what he did, and many GIs whose lives were saved because of it. He made a tremendous service to his country by standing up and bearing witness to the 'bait-and-kill' war crimes." Erich Burmeister discusses the court-martial as well as the lead up and feels the military played "'good cop-bad cop' . . . to perfection" in convincing James to enter a guilty plea ("We took the bait and got our butts kicked"). Of the court-martial, he notes, "I feel like the case was used as an example to other soldiers. Not only will you get punished, but your loved ones will be too." James Burmeister can receive letters "at Box A, Fort Knox, KY 40121." Earlier this month, Helen Burmeister explained to Rachel McDonald (OPB), "I'm very disappointed in the way they feel they can treat veterans of war. I think the reason my son went AWOL was for a good reason. I don't think he deserved the punishment he got." James Burmeister was court-martialed July 16th, Dee Knight covered the court-martial here and noted the military came down hard on James because he was a whistle-blower.

Burmeister self-checked out and went to Canada. He decided to return to the US in March and turn himself in. Robin Long self-checked out and went to Canada as well; however, he did not make the decision to return. Judge Anne Mctavish made the decision to extradite him and tried to pass it off as deportation. Courage to Resist notes:

On July 15, 2008 U.S. Army PFC Robin Long became the first war resister since the Vietnam War forced to leave Canada and to be turned over to the U.S. military. Robin is currently being held in the El Paso County Jail, in Colorado, awaiting his Courts Martial. He will be present for his Courts Martial at Fort Carson, Co. He will likely be charged for AWOL, desertion, and possibly speech-related violations of military discipline; he is facing a General Courts Martial, the maximum penalty of such a trial is 20 years confinement. Support Robin Long and all troops with the courage to resist!

In Iraq yesterday, bombings took place in Baghdad and another in Kirkuk. Following the Kirkuk violence, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Sabrina Tavernise (New York Times) report, violence broke out in the form of mob attacks on Turkmen, buildings were burned, guns were fired, rocks were thrown ("at least 25 Turkmen guards" were injured) leading Iraqi MP Saadeddin Arkej to declare, "I can't practice democracy at the Parliament while the dictatorship is attacking and burning the headquarters of the Turkmen Front in Kirkuk and burning and looting other Turkmen establishments." Caesar Ahmed and Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) observe, "The bombing and reprisals provided a glimpse of the passions among Kurds, Turkmens and Arabs over the future boundaries of Iraq's Arab north and its Kurdistan region." Meanwhile AFP reports Turkey flew planes over northern Iraq in an air strike which they state "completely destroyed" a cave used by PKK members but Kurdish spokesperson Sinksar Abudllah states the bombings took place "where there are only families who earn their living raising sheep. This is the first time that Turkish planes have attacked during the day. We have not received any information about casualties."

Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Diyala Province bombing that claimed 1 life. Diyala Province is where the assault began today -- despite last week's leaks that it would start August 1st. Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters) reports that 14,000 to 18,000 Iraqi soldiers should be in the province now and notes, "A Reuters witness said large numbers of Iraqi police and army personnel had deployed in Baquba, where they were searching homes. The U.S. military was present in small numbers backed by helicopters, the witness said." AFP notes the US military's attempts to hard-sell it as an Iraqi operation (and ntoes they once claimed it would involved 30,000 Iraqi soldiers). AP quotes Ahmed Kadhim ("35-year-old businessman") who criticizes the loose lips, "I think this allowed armed groups to flee outside the province." Deborah Haynes (Times of London) appears to back that up, noting that a serach in Fatamia found "only three or four families remained. Six months ago there were 30 to 40 families. This eerie scene has been played out repeatedly in other villages across the southeastern corner of Diyala province, one of the country's most notorious areas." Which should lead to questions of -- remember this was leaked well in advance -- whether or not this is a for-show measure intended to make it appear that things are improving? In another report, Deborah Haynes (Times of London) notes that Iraqi military is "backed by small US military teams". China's Xinhua points out that Diyala Province is now under curfew. UPI reveals the assault's name "Omens of Prosperity." BBC adds, "Apart from the deployment in Baquba, Iraqi and US forces conducted raids in several outlying areas."

Alex Spillius (Telegraph of London) reports US Gen David Petraeus is estimating Iraqis could be in (security) control of their country by the middle of 2010. Considering Petraeus' past estimates, don't hold your breath. Gordon Lubold (Christian Science Monitor) tosses a damp blanket on Petraeus -- the GAO says that after all this time, Iraq is still not responsible (in full -- or puppet) for 8 provinces, most forces aren't at any level of readiness, benchmarks remain unreached.

The Iraqi government has withdrawn an order banning eight key union organisers belonging to the powerful Iraqi Federation of Oil Unions (IFOU). The union leaders were ordered out of the southern city of Basra after the Western backed government of Nuri al-Maliki said they were memebers of "militias" and helped in the smuggling of oil. The union denied these charges. Hassan Juma'a Awad, the head of the IFOU, called on unions around the world to rally to the oil workers. In a statement he said, "This act is a clear evidence that the Iraqi state seeks to liquidate trade unions in this important Iraqi economic sector. It is important to note that the south is the main source of oil in Iraq." Sabah Jawad, the spokesman for the Naftana, the organisation that campaigns for Iraqi oil rights, told Socialist Worker that the government reversed the order following mounting pressure from Iraqi unions and the international anti-war movement. Jawad said, "We told Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi oil minister, that this was not acceptable, and informed him that we were aware of the measures being taken by the oil ministry." US and European oil multinationals are scrambling to grasp Iraq's vast oil reserves. George Bush made the take-over of oil one of his key "indicators" that the "surge" is succeeding. The return of the multinationals, 36 years after Iraq nationalised its oil, has been greeted with widespread anger. The oil workers have been at the head of the movement resisting the hand over of the industry to western comanies. "The withdrawal of the order is a victory for international solidarity and Iraqi trade unions," Jawad said.

I read an article in the July 12 edition of the New York Times titled "Obama Won't Commit to Event at Military Base." The article confused me, because in a recent Army Times article titled "If Obama Wins," you were quoted as saying "Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform."

The NY Times article mentioned, and it bears repeating, that Fort Hood is the largest active-duty military installation in the country. Our post is so large and our commitment to Iraq so great that the Killeen Daily Herald published an article on July 13, 2008 about our sister division titled "4th ID Association Looking to Expand Soldier Memorial."

Since speaking out against the war, I've had to take great precautions to ensure that I'm never perceived to be speaking on behalf of the United States Army nor the Armed Services as a whole, so I hope this letter isn't perceived as such. But I have to say that I think it would be a huge step toward earning the trust of men and women in uniform if you and your campaign work with Carissa Picard and the Presidential Town Hall Consortium, and commit to appearing at this meeting the way Senator McCain has.

The full letter is here. Meanwhile John Pilger (New Statesman) calls out Barack's rah-rah on Afghanistan slaughter, "Having declared Afghanistan a 'good war', the complicit enablers are now anointing Barack Obama as he tours the bloodfests in Afghanistan and Iraq. What they never say is that Obama is a bomber. In the New York Times on 14 July, in an article spun to appear as if he is ending the war in Iraq, Obama demanded more war in Afghanistan and, in effect, an invasion of Pakistan. He wants more combat troops, more helicopters, more bombs. Bush may be on his way out, but the Republicans have built an ideological machine that transcends the loss of electoral power -- because their collaborators are, as the American writer Mike Whitney put it succinctly, 'bait-and-switch' Democrats, of whom Obama is the prince." Meanwhile, look what happens when Gary Younge lets his Socialist roots hang free: He can tell the truth the way he so rarely does in The Nation or the Guardian of London. Writing for the UK's Socialist Review, Young's Obama-devotion is not rushed to maximum high and includes the following:

"[Obama] is being consumed as the embodiment of colour blindness," Angela Davis, professor of history of consciousness at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told me last year. "It's the notion that we have moved beyond racism by not taking race into account. That's what makes him conceivable as a presidential candidate. He's become the model of diversity in this period... a model of diversity as the difference that makes no difference. The change that brings no change." Finally, he did not build a multi-racial coalition but a bi-racial one. Clinton's base has been erroneously portrayed as simply the white working class and older white women. But in California Latinos and Asian-Americans went much more heavily for Clinton than whites did and made her victory possible. The same was true with Latinos in Texas. Indeed the only state where Obama won the Latino vote was his home state of Illinois. And even then by just 1 percent.

Gary Younge, has it been erroneously reported? Yeah and you certainly did your part to PUSH THE LIE in your other two outlets. In fact, he has been nothing but a s**t stirrer and a LIAR throughout this election cycle as he pretended he was 'one of us' (he's British, he will not be voting in this election) and posed as a Democrat to make his lies just a little more forceful to Americans. Either tell the truth or beg for Americans to start asking, "Exactly who is Gary Younge?" (He's already lied again this week and the misogynist Common Dreams was happy to repost it.) For the record, Angela Y. Davis speaks the truth. [On truth, Michael D. Shear and Dan Balz (Washington Post) try to track down the story of Barack's skipping out on wounded US soldiers.] Patrick Martin (WSWS) points today to a Newsweek interview with Barach where he "emphasized" "phased withdrawal" and Martin observes this is "support for an open-ended US military presence in Iraq". It's the 'residual forces' aspect that Barack will never be clear on -- but any paying attention should have grasped he's not calling for withdrawal. Last week Katie Couric (CBS Evening News -- video and text at link) interviewed Barack and attempted to press him to get specific about this "residual force" -- noting that "some of your advisors have said it could be tens of thousands of troops. Why can't you be more specific as to what you envision?" Barack's response included, "As I've said before . . . I am not interested in a false choice between either perfect inflexibility in which the next 16 months or the next two years I ignore anything that's happening in Iraq. Or, alternatively, that I just have an open-ended, indefinite occupation of Iraq in which we're not putting any pressure on the Iraqis to stand up . . . take this burden on. What I'm gonna do is to set a vision of where we need to go, a clear and specific timeframe within which we're gonna pull our combat forces out." He would never answer the question. [Ava and I covered the interview here.] And unlike his remarks on Sunday, he did agree the 'surge' was a success in that interview. (The 'surge' has not been a success.) He's not supporting withdrawal. Which is why Patrick Martin (WSWS) concludes "The Amrican people thus will be given the choice on November 4 of voting for War #1 or War #2, Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, they will be saddled with both wars, with only slight differences between the Democrats and Republicans over which war should receive the largest proportion of US military resources. Those who oppose American militarism, who want to bring an end to the oppression and violence wrought by imperialist aggression throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, have been disenfrancised by the two big business parties." And voters have other choice (including write-in, staying home, voting for other offices but not for president) which includes other candidates because it is not a two-person race. Ralph Nader is the independent presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney is the Green Party presidential candidate and Bob Barr is the Libertarian Party candidate. Last week the Nader - Gonzalez (Matt Gonzalez) began a series of campaign stops that found local and regional media more receptive to covering the presidential race than is the national media. Jim Galloway (AJC) quoted Nader speaking at the University of Georgia, "[Obama is] always talking about his past as a community organizer. But again and again, day after day, he's back-tracking, surrendering, flip-flopping -- and appointing the worst corporatist advisors you can imagine." John O'Connor (The State) covered Ralph's appearance in South Carolina where Ralph explained of Barack and presumed GOP nominee John McCain, "They represent a minority viewpoint. We represent a majority of the American people." Yvonne Wenger (Post and Courier) reported on the South Carolina stop as well quoting Ralp stating, "If you don't resist, the situation gets worse. The alternative is surrender. . . . The stands McCain and Obama have taken again and again do not have the support of the majority of the American people." Sebastian Kitchen (Montgomery Advertiser) reported on his stop in Montgomery at the Rosa Parks Library and Museum and how he noted "Rosa Parks challenged the system" and wondered of the Iraq War, corporate control of the country, minimum wage and healthcare, "Why aren't these issues talked about by the major parties?" Marshall Griffin (KWMU) reported yesterday, "Ralph Nader is a step closer to getting his name on Missouri's presidential ballot. Robert Dalaviras, State Coordinator for the Nader campaign, delivered two boxes of petitions to the Secretary of State's office in Jefferson City this morning." KXAN reported on his Austin stop noting that he called for a number of issues:

"A comprehensive, negotiated military and corporate withdrawal date from Iraq""A single-payer, Canadian-style, private delivery, free-choice public health insurance system for all""A living wage and repeal of the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act""A no nuke solar-based energy policy supported by renewable, sustainable, energy-efficient sources""A carbon tax to deter global warming"An end to corporate welfare and corporate crime that has resulted in millions losing pensions, savings and jobs and squandered tax dollars""More direct democracy reflecting the preamble to our constitution which starts with 'we the people,' and not 'we the corporations"

American-Statesman: So why are you running for the presidency? Ralph Nader: Strong labor laws facilitating unions, strong consumer protections, environmental, foreign, military policy -- all these are not being addressed in a way that a majority of people in this country want them addressed. The majority of people in this country want single-payer health insurance. They want a living wage. They want to get out of Iraq. They want a lot of things that we stand for, and the other side -- (Sens. John) McCain and (Barack) Obama -- are either against it or ignore it. They don't want to talk about it.

Austin Cassidy (Austin Cassidy's Independent Political Report) explains that August 2nd and 34d will find Ralph, Cynthia McKinney, Brian Moore an Gloria La Riva competing in Sacramento for the Peace and Freedom Party's nomination which would allow the candidate to be on the ballot in California. (Cynthia's already on the ballot as the Green nominee). La Riva was part of a woman of color presidential ticket in both 1996 and 2000 (with Monica Moorhead). Team Nader notes:

Is Nader/Gonzalez for real?

The country wants to know.

Will Nader/Gonzalez be on enough ballots in November to make a run for it?

And to be seriously considered for the Presidential debates?

We're now on 18 state ballots, heading toward 30 by August 10 - on our way to our ultimate goal of 45 states by September 20.

And getting to thirty won't happen unless we hit our goal of $100,000 by August 10. (Which would give us $2 million for the entire campaign year to date.)